Karac:The dad was sending payments for 23 years, and never noticed that he was sending too much for too long. It's entirely possible that mom never noticed it was too high as well, because as someone else said, idiot and people with poor money management skills attract.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".

onyxruby:FizixJunkee: antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Not always true. My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother. She rarely paid.

Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.

Women involved with divorce hate sons. They remind them on the kid's father. Of course the state ignores this. I'm sorry for your kid's plight. I really wish our society valued equality...your son is paying the price.

Vegan Meat Popsicle:quatchi: I think the case with Dr Richard Philips of Illinois might have been the shark jumping moment.

Or you could try understanding, on even a very basic level, how paternity law typically works. Was he or was he not the father? Because of he was, there is no contestable claim regardless of how it happened and the ruling will be made in the best interests of the child, the best interests being support from both parents.

No, I get all that I'm just saying that this is exactly the type of issue that makes professional misogynists like Lykos a lot of money.

He totes owes the money for his own kid, obviously, but how that kid came into being does matter.

I note that you conveniently snipped out the bits where he's successfully been pressing a case against her for the intentional infliction of emotional distress because her actions were so extreme.

She sued him successfully for child support and now he's suing her for being a lying, calculating, deal-breaking, cold-hearted, sperm thief.

The courts will err 100% of the time on child support payments, because sadly there are far more people anxious to avoid paying child support than there are people who want to do the right thing. So I suspect what happened here is, when dad asked for an audit, said audit consisted of them calling mom up and saying "Is there still Younger Son living there?" --Oh yes!-- said mom who wants the extra money and to stick it to her ex. Because why would a woman lie about her child being dead, right?

Now, to be fair, why dad waited for so many years to wonder why he was still paying support on a dead kid shows he wasn't exactly involved in his children's lives, so it's hard to feel too sorry for him. But he's partially paying for all those other deadbeat parents who just refuse to pay for their kids and so we have this system that assumes all parents paying support are evil slackers who wouldn't pay a dime if they weren't forced into it. And mom shares in the blame because she should have reported immediately that a) the child was dead and b) that her support payments were too high year after year, which she did not.

cptjeff:GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

That would be fine if her choice didn't result in a massive financial penalty with no appeal on the man. I'm all in favor of the women having the right to choose- but how 'bout this: If a man doesn't want the responsibility to help raise a child, he can pay for an abortion. If the women still wants the baby, she's responsible for the financial implications of that decision, not him.

Look, right now women trying to get guys they see as wealthy to knock them up so they can pocket the checks isn't only not unheard of, it's a downright common practice. This stuff happens. The kids don't see that money, mommy uses it so she doesn't have to actually get a job. You're creating perverse incentives.

And no, the man is not solely responsible. It takes two to fark- mamma made that decision just as much as daddy did. In fact, it's not unheard of for mamma to poke holes in condoms or lie about birth control- both of which, IMO, should be fraud and result in a forced abortion and a jail sentence, but I know that's unrealistic and bad public policy. Right now, it tends to lead to mommy getting enough money to neglect a kid she hates and never having to work. Women abuse the system because it's set up for them to always win and for fathers to always lose, regardless of the circumstances. You can't set up a system where one party has lots of rights and the other basically none and expect good outcomes.

And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.

ramblinwreck:Women involved with divorce hate sons. They remind them on the kid's father. Of course the state ignores this. I'm sorry for your kid's plight. I really wish our society valued equality...your son is paying the price.

quatchi:cptjeff: Gawdzila: If you don't want a bun in her oven don't give her the baby batter.

What if she gets that out of the guy through fraud? Holes in the condom, lying about birth control? It wasn't proven, because the court didn't care and was just gonna stick him with child support anyway and wouldn't let the guy litigate the point, but there was a case where it was alleged that the women gave the guy a blowjob, went to another room, spat out the sperm, and used it to impregnate herself after he left. Another one where it was alleged the women used the sperm from a sock the guy had used for masturbation. In both cases, the court wouldn't even hear argument, because best interests of the child, blah blah blah. Mom's conduct in creating the child didn't matter. There was one where a female teacher, who was later charged with statutory rape, still got to collect money from the teenager she had, by the law's own definition, raped, once he came of age and got a job.

At what point does it all go too far?

I think the case with Dr Richard Philips of Illinois might have been the shark jumping moment.

Clearly the solution is that after every divorce children should be equal split if possible, or turned over to the government (mandatory for single children) for raising with each parent contributing equal contribution to the state for raising the child, or death. That way everyone is happy.

Maggie_Luna:Clearly the solution is that after every divorce children should be equal split if possible, or turned over to the government (mandatory for single children) for raising with each parent contributing equal contribution to the state for raising the child, or death. That way everyone is happy.

Yeah, I'm sure the government raising children will work out just fine. Broken system and broken relationships = very broken. So sad in so many ways...damn, I must need another beer because I'm way too maudlin for a Saturday night. Sigh...

ramblinwreck:tom baker's scarf: ramblinwreck: clear_prop: My ex has me on garnishment even though I've always paid on time to 'guarantee' I pay. Once or twice a year CPS 'forgets' to do the transfer so I get an angry call from the ex and then have to deal with the morons at CPS.

At least I've gotten my payments down to a sane level. Early on in the process my child support payments were more than my net income.

Sounds like the "down to the minute" monthly transfer crazy awareness applies to this one. (See previous posts)

How is that even possible for the court to order more than net income? Did you have some shiatty lawyer or was the court that bat shiat insane?

Nope. The clerk takes the actual numbers from the working parent's pay stub and then pulls random numbers from the sky for the non working parent, types in a completely lopsided custody order, hits enter and goes home. It doesn't really matter what the result is so long as she's out the door at three and makes all her cigarette breaks. They actually said that my ex with her BSN RN degree had an earning potential of $12/hour, 20 hours a week max. Also I only would have gotten the kids for about 70 days a year. It put my child support at 90% of my take home pay.

Lawyers and judges aren't involved in FOC judgements. There is virtually no internal oversight and despite the fact that none of the "coordinators" have any real legal authority they're rulings have the force of law. It's prime conditions for a cesspool of stupidly and laziness.

My suggestion to anyone going through divorce is to get it to a judge ASAP. You're going to end up there anyway and generally speaking they are quite good at setting fair parenting schedules.

In my case the foc's epic fail worked to my advantage. Because it was to completely retarded the judge had no choice but to toss it and figure out a new arrangement ASAP.

What the fark. The deck is stacked. No wonder men don't want to get married (or have kids). Reading about towns where kid ...

In my case, my ex made false charges of child abuse to gain an advantage in the divorce. I wasn't allowed to see my kids for many months and child support is set based on how much each parent has the kids. And it isn't like she is some welfare queen. She has a PhD and at the time was making about 90% of what I was. The only thing that saved me from bankruptcy was credit cards and my parents flipping me some money.

The goal of Family Court is to fark up families as much as possible so they get stuck in the system and bring more business to the court. Fortunately for me, my ex has gotten tired of dealing with them, and has been mostly sane the last few years.

Court ordered payments are legal because the court orders them. If the court says she's entitled to the child support, then she's entitled to it, whether or not the child that is supporting is 3, 12, 18, 34 or dead.

It's only fraud on her part if she initiated seeking child support for a child who didn't exist at that time.

I may be going with common sense here, but it's child support, not a set payment to the mother every month until the child is 18 regardless of the state of the child. In other words, it is to support the child. If there is no child, there should be no support.

If the dad wasn't clear on whether he was paying child support for one or two children in any given month, it also may not have been clear to the mother... I mean, if he pays the state, then the state pays her, it's not at all clear that they would enumerate for what she was receiving payment with each check, especially given the clusterfark of audits. Frankly, it's not evident there's ill will on anyones part, just massive incompetence by the middle men.

It's Wayne County FOC, which of course, is not exactly competency-central, as any of you who have ever lived in Michigan are painfully aware. (Rolls eyes.)

Best thing to do if you're contemplating a divorce is to try to work things out with a mediator, and ask to opt out of the FOC entirely, if you feel comfortable doing so. Of course, that takes a lot of trust on both the part of both sides, but if you can do it, so much the better. My ex & I did that, and so far, has worked out well for us. He pays early or on time, no one has to worry about delays or direct deposit hassles, and we don't have to deal with the FOC & its useless staff.

CSS time: When I was a teenager, my dad had issues with the FOC in our home county up north "losing" his payments that he sent from his job in Detroit. So, while I was visiting for Xmas break, we stopped off at my grandparents' house to collect his cancelled checks from the local bank, and grandpa reminded my dad that he had a handgun that he should remember to take back with him. He threw it all in his briefcase, and we went to the courthouse. The staff were in the middle of their Christmas party, and the guy who ran the office came to talk to us, while eating out of a huge bag of Doritos. My dad explained what the problem was, and that they needed to fix it. The guy was like, "no YOU'RE the one who's wrong." So, my dad got pissed, and opened up his briefcase to take out his stack of cancelled checks. Lying on top of the checks was his gun--he'd completely forgot about it being in there, and I'd forgotten to remind him to take it out, like he asked me to (oops.) The FOC guy's eyes bugged out of his head & he dropped his Doritos. He just stammered and said something like , "OK, no, we'll fix that for you...just go ahead and leave, and we'll take care of that before the end of the day." So, my dad closed up his case & we walked out of there. We got out into the hallway, looked at each other, and just busted out laughing. Ah, the good old days...

Baryogenesis:And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.

Well, if we're talking ideal worlds, the GOP wouldn't exist, and abortion would be widely available and less stigmatized. You're also thinking about these as unintentional pregnancies. They're not. They are very, very intentional pregnancies on the part of the women. Remove the financial incentive entirely, and they simply won't exist, making the question of abortion moot.

And no, paperwork and abortion aren't equal choices, but that's not the choice. The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money. So my solution removes any element of reward from the equation, so the women's choice is now, do I have the abortion, or do I have the kid? When suddenly having to face the possibility of bearing the price tag on that kid for 20 years, they would chose to have the abortion. But right now, that burden is placed mostly, if not entirely, on somebody who's not a part of that decision. So, as a simple and obvious economic decision, the burden placed on the man, with child support payments, is much greater than the burden placed on the women in ending the pregnancy (doesn't have to be an abortion). When one person, being faced with the full range of incentives and disincentives on both sides, is forced to pick between the two different burdens, is it any shock that the vast majority choose to terminate the pregnancy?

Right now, the women is the only one with any power to make the choice, and her choices are between status quo or (to her) free money. The burdens of having an abortion versus filing some paperwork are indeed not equal, but the burdens of having an abortion versus 20 years of child support payments are vastly unequal too.

I actually have the bank mail a paper check to "Ex-Mrs. Meerlar or Meerlar's seed" not direct deposit into her bank account (courts are still not involved at this point)... that way when he's old enough to know what's going on he can start stealing them from the mail and cashing them himself.

Meerlar:I actually have the bank mail a paper check to "Ex-Mrs. Meerlar or Meerlar's seed" not direct deposit into her bank account (courts are still not involved at this point)... that way when he's old enough to know what's going on he can start stealing them from the mail and cashing them himself.

The court will be involved immediately after that happens the first time.

The Larch:Karac: The dad was sending payments for 23 years, and never noticed that he was sending too much for too long. It's entirely possible that mom never noticed it was too high as well, because as someone else said, idiot and people with poor money management skills attract.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".

Popular Opinion:The Larch: Karac: The dad was sending payments for 23 years, and never noticed that he was sending too much for too long. It's entirely possible that mom never noticed it was too high as well, because as someone else said, idiot and people with poor money management skills attract.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".

Flint Ironstag:GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.

That's wtf condoms (that he supplies) and bleach are for.

I ALWAYS advise my male friends not to let her supply the condom. biatches be farking crazy about trapping you guys. But that solution? "Oh gee! I don't wanna be a baby daddy, so I don't have to pay for it!" Bullshiat. That's about as responsible as the dumb biatch who calls at midnight-oh-one wanting to know where the support check is because she won't get off her ass and get a job to take care of the kid she helped create.

Men are not a meal ticket. Women are not cum dumpsters. Both sides take some farking responsibility.

/didn't want kids, so took every possible precaution--it's not that damn hard to make sure you don't get pregnant//wasn't at all sad when it became medically necessary at 32 to make it medically impossible for me to ever give birth///world's overpopulated anyway

Karac:spidermann: (And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)

Holy shiat. You have to pay child support, but you don't even have so much as an address for your kid? That just ain't farking right.I realize you wouldn't necessarily get any kind of custody, but I would think that the exchange of monies would come with at least a theoretical possibility to see the kid.

Ah, but I have a penis.

See... this is where we get into the whole "Child Support/Custody Needs Reform" area. Within the divorce decree I still have my parental rights (never signed them away) AND a set amount of time to have my child. I am supposed to have her around 30% of the time (alternating holidays, my birthday, summers, etc) as well as be able to talk to her at least once, although strongly suggested for twice or more, a week via phone; uninterrupted and unmonitored by anybody else for at least one hour.

My ex has my number. She has my address. She knows where I work. She doesn't care, plain and simple... and neither do the courts. My ex has broken the decree, put in place by a judge, but nobody wants to do anything about it. She broke the law by not following the decree and I get a big "meh". Every person, even the nice DA I deal with on the support/healthcare decree issues, tells me "get a lawyer".

My response is "With what money? You're taking half of everything I make."

Yet every time my seasonal layoff comes around? Local DA starts hounding me on paying even though I'm being brought back a scant time later and my unemployment pays 80% towards support. I better pay, I better find another job or they'll take my license that I need to get to work. They'd take my passport so I can't go out of country even if there were work in Canada. They'll remove any licensing that any certifications I have require. They'll report arrears to my credit report so I can't get a line of credit to afford an attorney. My job requires that I be either current or making arranged payments for any debts including taxes and garnishments or I will be terminated, yet that isn't good enough even though I remain employed.

ANYTHING to make it actually harder to pay and I'm not the only one as this happens to more and more people who want to pay but, and especially in the current economic client, find it hard to do because getting a job isn't the easiest thing in the world right now. The fact that they will take away so many of the things you vitally need to get or keep a job is just wrong.

I have one job that I continue to go to while taking home half of my pay because, even though I know different, I hope the other half is going to my child for her happiness. THAT sustains me.

Baryogenesis:antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

Karac:spidermann: (And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)

Holy shiat. You have to pay child support, but you don't even have so much as an address for your kid? That just ain't farking right.

Agreed. No address, no support. Should be federally mandated unless the support-paying, non-custodial parent is a pedophile. I've known far too many fathers who are court-ordered to pay support, but who are prevented from seeing or even knowing where their kids are because the mothers just run off. Keep the father from seeing the kid? You get no support. Why this is not law at the federal level is something I literally cannot fathom.

Aigoo:Karac: spidermann: (And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)

Holy shiat. You have to pay child support, but you don't even have so much as an address for your kid? That just ain't farking right.

Agreed. No address, no support. Should be federally mandated unless the support-paying, non-custodial parent is a pedophile. I've known far too many fathers who are court-ordered to pay support, but who are prevented from seeing or even knowing where their kids are because the mothers just run off. Keep the father from seeing the kid? You get no support. Why this is not law at the federal level is something I literally cannot fathom.

It seems so... logical, doesn't it? And it works for both sides of the spectrum, male or female. Unless there are extenuating circumstances such as your mentioned pedophilia or drug abuse or something like that, then the inclusion of both parents should be mandatory for a support order.

The Larch:Popular Opinion: and this is why we have the right to own guns.

Silly teahadist. Revolutions make bureaucrats stronger, not weaker.

if the government cannot protect us, we must assist them in this endeavor.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security "

cptjeff:Baryogenesis: And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.

Well, if we're talking ideal worlds, the GOP wouldn't exist, and abortion would be widely available and less stigmatized. You're also thinking about these as unintentional pregnancies. They're not. They are very, very intentional pregnancies on the part of the women. Remove the financial incentive entirely, and they simply won't exist, making the question of abortion moot.

And no, paperwork and abortion aren't equal choices, but that's not the choice. The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money. So my solution removes any element of reward from the equation, so the women's choice is now, do I have the abortion, or do I have the kid? When suddenly having to face the possibility of bearing the price tag on that kid for 20 years, they would chose to have the abortion. But right now, that burden is placed mostly, if not entirely, on somebody who's not a part of that decision. So, as a simple and obvious economic decision, the burden placed on the man, with child support payments, is much greater than the burden placed on the women in ending the pregnancy (doesn't have to be an abortion). When one person, being faced with the full range of incentives and disincentives on both sides, is forced to pick between the two different burdens, is it any shock that the vast majority choose to terminate the pregnancy?

Right now, the women is the only one with any power to make the choice, and her choices are between status quo or (to her) free money. The burdens of having an abortion versus filing some paperwork are indeed not equal, but the burdens of having an abortion versus 20 years of child support payments are vastly unequal too.

As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that only women abuse the system.We can talk incentives. The current system has disincentives for both men and women. Women can get an abortion, carry to term and give the baby up for adoption or keep the baby and bear the cost of raising it which can be supplemented by child support from the man. Men only have one disincentive, the cost of paying child support for 18 years.

Your bright idea is to eliminate that one disincentive for men to not create unwanted children because some percentage (can you give me a number?) of women will try to trap men with a baby.

Heck, even with the high cost of paying for a child there are still plenty of men who are too dumb/horny/naive to wrap it up or just not fark women they don't trust. And you want to give them a pass to essentially never care about creating a child they don't want to raise.

So yes, women retain the choice after sex to keep or not keep the child because they bear a much greater responsibility than men.

The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?

Oh, and for all you all making this into some big power play between the man and the woman (Which one is responsible? Who is playing who?) that is exactly the reason the courts have to be so draconian about the child support issue. Because in between the man who doesn't want to pay and the woman who doesn't want to work, there is a CHILD who isn't getting taken care of. While the man whines that "she tricked me!" and the woman biatches that "he lied to me!" neither one of them is taking care of the kid they produced between the two of them. So the court has to do it.

Of course, a better solution would be to put the money into an unbreakable trust in the child's name so dad pays the money straight to the child, and a court-appointed trustee buys everything the kid needs and mom never sees or touches a dime of it; that would cost money and require some degree of faith in the system which I know nobody on Fark has; but it might prevent deadbeat parents from claiming they don't pay because their ex-spouse is just taking all the money for him/herself. And then the trustee could sue the deadbeat on the child's behalf and deadbeat couldn't claim it was just the spouse trying to get even with him/her for some unrelated cause.

And if the father doesn't want to take responsibility for the child he fathered, there's actually a fairly easy way to do it: He can go to court immediately after its born and legally relinquish his parental rights. Then he doesn't have to pay for it. Of course, then he can't complain about anything mom does later that affects "his" kid, but that's the way it works.

Baryogenesis:The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?

Condoms: women poke holes in them pretty often. When a women wants to trap you with a baby, they're no obstacle.Vasectomies: yeah, try selling that to a young guy who might actually want to have kids someday, just in a real relationship.

Your solutions aren't solutions. They're not even close to real ideas. Try again. As long as the economic incentive exists, it will happen. You could try to reform the law so that if it is found to a form of a women trying to trap a man, the women doesn't get child support. I'd be in favor of that, but it would involve the inefficiency and cost of involving the court system with every dispute.

Baryogenesis:As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork?

It takes two to decide to fark. The women is perfectly free to refuse to have sex if the birth control bases aren't covered, and guys try to fark everything that moves anyway. If the women doesn't want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get rid of it or prevent it. If the women does want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get it, regardless of what the man involved wants. The only time a man's judgement as to whether to fark somebody and whether or not to use birth control doesn't involve the women is in the case of rape, and there are plenty of strong disincentives for that.

A man cannot trap a women with a child that women does not want. Period, end of sentence. It literally cannot happen, at least in this country. If the women does not want the child, she has the power to get rid of it. There are sometimes disincentives in making that choice, but at least in this country, a women cannot be forced to carry a child to term, and even if she has the child, she is allowed to turn it over for adoption. A women can trap a man into a situation, but, outside of an abusive relationship, which wouldn't involve child support anyway, there is literally no way for a man to trap a women in one. Hence the concern with women trapping men- the opposing situation just doesn't exist.

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

Based on the article, it sounds like all of the money this guy was paying was going to "surcharges" for late fees, collection fees, interest, and anything else the collection agency could legally tack onto the bill before they sent anything left over to the state. The child lost any claim to the child support payments when the mother started collecting welfare.

Baryogenesis:antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.

cptjeff:Baryogenesis: The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?

Condoms: women poke holes in them pretty often. When a women wants to trap you with a baby, they're no obstacle.Vasectomies: yeah, try selling that to a young guy who might actually want to have kids someday, just in a real relationship.

Your solutions aren't solutions. They're not even close to real ideas. Try again. As long as the economic incentive exists, it will happen. You could try to reform the law so that if it is found to a form of a women trying to trap a man, the women doesn't get child support. I'd be in favor of that, but it would involve the inefficiency and cost of involving the court system with every dispute.

Baryogenesis: As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork?

It takes two to decide to fark. The women is perfectly free to refuse to have sex if the birth control bases aren't covered, and guys try to fark everything that moves anyway. If the women doesn't want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get rid of it or prevent it. If the women does want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get it, regardless of what the man involved wants. The only time a man's judgement as to whether to fark somebody and whether or not to use birth control doesn't involve the women is in the case of rape, and there are plenty of strong disincentives for that.

A man cannot trap a women with a child that women does not want. Period, end of sentence. It literally cannot happen, at least in this country. If the women does not want the child, she has the power to get rid of it. There are sometimes disincentives in making that choice, but at least in this country, a women cannot be forced to carry a child to term, and even if she has the child, she is allowed to turn it over for adoption. A women can trap a man into a situation, but, outside of an abusive relationship, which wouldn't involve child support anyway, there is literally no way for a man to trap a women in one. Hence the concern with women trapping men- the opposing situation just doesn't exist.

I guess in your world there is no possible way for a man not to be trapped by these devil women. Those poor helpless men who can't buy their own condoms, choose not to fark women they don't trust or get a vasectomy.

I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.

Hey don't worry. Bary will just tell you to spend up to 2 grand to get a possibly irreversible surgery to ensure that never happens to you.

redmid17:Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.

If you're that worried then you need toA) not fark the girlB) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourselfC) get snippedD) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you

Baryogenesis:If you're that worried then you need toA) not fark the girlB) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourselfC) get snippedD) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you

Baryogenesis:redmid17: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.

If you're that worried then you need toA) not fark the girlB) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourselfC) get snippedD) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you

I'm not that worried. I have a girlfriend who isn't crazy. I just think you're an idiot for thinking that men should shoulder most of the responsibility for something that, at best, they are only 50% responsible for.

Baryogenesis:I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?

Morning after pill is over the counter. Women have many more birth control options than men do, and can insist on men wearing condoms. Make men pay for the morning after pill or the abortion. Just have the clinic and the debt collection agencies have at if he doesn't want to pay.

The women always hast the power to stop or avoid an unwanted pregnancy, for the cost of $50 for a pill or a day at a clinic, which, under my system, she wouldn't ever have to pay. She also has access to a number of convenient and reversible birth control systems that men don't have access to.

The current system works fine with the presumption that an unintended pregnancy will result in birth and that women have no say in whether men use birth control or not. It was set up at a time when both of those things were more or less true. Now, neither of those things are true.

cptjeff:Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them. In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.